Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31774519›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2019

Follow-up of Intervention to Prevent Dental Caries Among Indigenous Children in Australia: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Lisa Jamieson, Lisa Smithers, Joanne Hedges, Helen Mills, Kostas Kapellas, Diep Ha, Loc Do, Xiangqun Ju

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. The sociobiome-oral microbiome mediates dental caries among Indigenous Australians.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisa JamiesonAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Lisa SmithersSchool of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Joanne HedgesAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Helen MillsAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Kostas KapellasAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Diep HaAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Loc DoAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Xiangqun JuAustralian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
University of Adelaide · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: For an intervention delivered in early childhood to have meaningful translational effect, long-term follow-up is necessary, especially among underserved indigenous children among whom preventable dental disease is common. Objectives: To test the long-term effectiveness of an early-childhood dental intervention through a follow-up at age 5 years among Aboriginal children in Australia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial followed up on participants of the Baby Teeth Talk Study, a 2-group parallel, outcome assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted among Aboriginal children in South Australia, Australia. Participants included 448 mother or caregiver-child dyads who were enrolled in the Baby Teeth Talk trial between February 2010 and May 2011 and were randomized in the present trial to the immediate intervention group or the delayed intervention group. Intention-to-treat principles were used for all data analyses to estimate the effect of the intervention on dental caries experience. Data analysis was performed from April 10 to May 27, 2019. Interventions: The intervention comprised 4 services to participants: (1) dental care to mothers during pregnancy, (2) application of fluoride varnish to children's teeth, (3) anticipatory guidance in the form of oral health educational packages, and (4) motivational interviewing for pregnant mothers and children at ages 6, 12, and 18 months in the immediate intervention group and at ages 24, 30, and 36 months in the delayed intervention group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean number, in the primary dentition, of decayed, missing, or filled teeth (dmft) at age 5 years. Individual components of the dmft index were examined, as was the prevalence of dmft greater than 0. Results: Of the 449 Aboriginal mothers and children recruited, 223 (49.7%) were randomized to the immediate intervention group and 225 (50.1%) to the delayed intervention group. The mean dmft at age 5 years was 2.10 (95% CI, 2.04 to 2.16) for children in the immediate intervention group and 2.91 (95% CI, 2.83 to 3.00) for children in the delayed intervention group (adjusted mean difference, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.81 to -0.22). When considering children in nonmetropolitan locations, the differences were stark; the mean dmft was 2.46 (95% CI, 2.38-2.54) for children in the immediate intervention group and 3.65 (95% CI, 3.53 to 3.78) for children in the delayed intervention group, with an adjusted mean difference of -1.52 (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.43). Most of this difference was accounted for by missing teeth, with the mean number of missing teeth of children in the immediate intervention group living in nonmetropolitan locations being 0.29 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.31) compared with 1.02 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.07) for their counterparts in the delayed intervention group. A 3-fold difference was observed in the percentage of missing teeth greater than 0 between children in the immediate intervention group and those in the delayed intervention group (10.8 [95% CI, 10.2 to 11.4] vs 31.0 [95% CI, 30.1 to 31.8]). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial found that a multifaceted initiative to reduce early-childhood caries continued to be efficacious in participating indigenous children aged 5 years, especially those residing in nonmetropolitan locations and with teeth missing because of dental disease. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000111976.

Indexed as

AustraliaChild, PreschoolDental CariesFollow-Up StudiesHumansInfantSingle-Blind Method

Identifiers

PMID31774519
PMCPMC6902806
OpenAlexW2991615290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.